State Senator, and Reverend, James Meeks launched himself back onto front pages Monday, by encouraging students in inner-city neighborhoods to skip the first day of school. The reason for the protest is something Meeks has harped on for years: inequities in school funding.

We should give Meeks credit for being persistent. But unfortunately we can’t give him credit for being effective, or even honest, in his protest. Meeks loves to make enemies out of suburban schools spending decadent amounts of cash on computer labs and sports facilities, while inner-city kids struggle for books and decent teachers.

But this obsession with the suburbs is the tip off that Meeks’ primary motivation is political. Why? Because there are inequalities within the City of Chicago that are just as great as the inequalities between city and suburbs.

A 2005 Chicago Catalyst study of school budgets found that some schools in Chicago, like Lane Tech, are spending more than $21,000 per year. Meanwhile, other schools, particularly those in neighborhoods like Engelwood, get less than $5,000. But the city isn’t required to publish this data and politicians, keen on demagoguing but disinterested in actually addressing real problems, would like to keep it that way.

The reality is, if there is anything for inner-city kids to protest, it is the system of public education itself. Inequality is literally built into the system by rigid union contracts that forbid schools in need from paying higher salaries to attract the best teachers.

Every year the state spends more on education and every year the inequity persists. State funding for education went up by $833 million between 2002 and 2007. And most of the money went to school districts that need it and not to schools with high property tax revenue. New Trier, a favorite target of the Rev. Meeks, gets less than 3 percent of its funding from state sources.

What happens to all this money once it gets to the school district level is actually quite a mystery. But it doesn’t go to the neighborhoods represented by James Meeks; the teachers’ union won’t allow it.

Teachers are on a very rigid pay scale based on years of service and education. A teacher with 10 years of classroom experience under his belt cannot make more money by teaching at a poor-achieving school. So, given his druthers, he will almost always choose to teach in the school with the highest achievement levels and fewest behavioral issues.

Some cities, like San Francisco, are changing their budgeting practices to allow for a more competitive salary structure. Alas, Chicago is not. And what’s worse, leaders representing the inner-city seemingly have no appetite for substantial reform. They are content, like Meeks, to dump billions into a dysfunctional system and then point fingers at the suburbs when those dollars dry up.

Perhaps Meeks should start demanding the city make more equitable use of its education dollars. Or perhaps he should push for the state to lift the cap on charter schools, because charter schools are not bound to the same rigid salary rules that tie the hands of traditional public schools.

Either way, Chicago students are entitled to protest. But the sad truth is that pointing fingers at suburban schools is not going to fix Chicago’s.